Mga Kuwentong Marites  #NinoyImelda #NinoyFerdinand

Umiikot ngayon sa tiktok ang isang video na pinost ng isang empanadaeditx tungkol sa “one of the most controversial chismis of the history” (sic) that the upcoming Darryl Yap film, Martyr or Murderer, “might tackle” daw.

Might pa lang? Kung sabagay, medyo sablay ang tsismis:

i  That back in the 1950s Ninoy was courting Imelda who “wasn’t wealthy or powerful” and Ninoy’s family disapproved of the relationship “in favor of Cory Aquino” and so he turned his eye to Cory, whose father was “a wealthy politician and businessman of Tarlac”.

ii  That “As Ferdinand and Ninoy became friends before, as they went (sic) in the same fraternity, Ferdinand actually helped Ninoy get heart surgery, with Imelda’s help.”

ANG TOTOO

NINOY & IMELDA were dating for a while but not exclusively. They were both playing the field.  That Ninoy later started dating Cory exclusively was not because his family disapproved of Imelda but because he fell in love with Cory who was, among other things, a math major, minor in French. As for Imelda the beauty queen, the story is that she was actually in love with a certain Nakpil when Ferdinand swept her off her feet in that whirlwind courtship of 11 days. (Read Nick Joaquin’s book on the Aquinos, and Betsy Romualdez Francia’s on Imelda.)

ANG TOTOO

NINOY & MARCOS were never friends in the true sense of the word. They were both Upsilonians but Marcos was batch 1937 and Ninoy batch 1950; hindi sila nag-abot sa U.P.  Sabi ni Kiko Pangilinan sa Twitter: “Pareho naming silang brods kahit na magkasalungat ang kanilang pulitika.” Marcos considered Ninoy his political nemesis, a threat to his dream of dynasty and reigning forever and ever. Kaya niya ito ikinulong. And when Ninoy urgently needed heart surgery, he didn’t agree to let Ninoy fly to Texas out of friendship or generosity but out of political expediency.

SANDRA BURTON. Although Marcos was reluctant to let Aquino leave the country, Imelda was quick to see the advantage of the proposal. “If he is operated on here and he dies, everyone will think there was monkey business,” she remarked. On the other hand, if he were flown to the U.S., the Marcoses could wash their hands of the troublesome prisoner. She won the argument, as she often did. [Impossible Dream page 107]

LUMANG TUGTUGIN. Dati nang ipinipilit ng Marcos propagandists na, dahil magkaibigan ang dalawa, imposibleng may kinalaman si Marcos sa pagpatay kay Ninoy. Sinabi pa nga daw ni Marcos sa kanyang generals na “my best successor is Ninoy.” But it was only a statement of fact (meant to agitate the generals into a conspiracy, I imagine), and not a statement of intent. Ang totoo, matagal na niyang naipangako ang puwesto kay Imelda.

RAYMOND BONNER. On June 7, 1975, in his own tiny scrawl, Marcos wrote out Presidential Decree Number 731. “By virtue of the powers vested in me . . . , I, Ferdinand E. Marcos, hereby decree” that “in the event of my death or permanent incapacity,” a commission shall exercise power. And the chairman of the commission, he also decreed, shall be “Mrs. Imelda R. Marcos.” [Waltzing with a Dictator, 156. See also Imelda Marcos: The Rise and Fall of One of the World’s Most Powerful Women by Carmen Navarro Pedrosa]

NEXT: WHO’S THE “CONGENITAL LIAR”?

‘Ubuntu’ and the Ateneo debaters’ historic win

Here’s hoping that Ateneo shares video and transcripts of the debate.  Let the conversation continue.  #darksideofUbuntu

RANDY DAVID

… The victory of Ateneo de Manila University’s debaters in the World Universities Debating Championship 2023 on Jan. 3 in Madrid, Spain, may be regarded as the present-day equivalent of the achievements that Rizal lavishly praised among his contemporaries. He would have been the first to recognize the significance of this feat.

Like anyone who marvels at the force of a good argument and tries to understand how it works, I, too, wanted to know how the team of Ateneo students David Africa and Tobi Leung formulated their argument. Here I quote from an online report: “The Ateneo team debated against the proposition that it is preferable to have a ‘world where all persons have a strong belief in the philosophy of Ubuntu.’”

“Ubuntu”—I had heard that word before. Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa first popularized it in his explanation of the objectives of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which he headed in post-apartheid South Africa. Ubuntu must inspire the commission, he said, as it pursues its difficult and complex work. A person with Ubuntu, he wrote in his book “No Future Without Forgiveness,” is “open and available to others, affirming of others.” Ubuntu makes him/her aware they are part of a greater whole.

Yet when I googled the word, the first entry that appeared referred to the open-source Linux operating system, which allows and promotes the free exchange of software. Ubuntu was indeed the name given to the free Linux operating system found in computers that refuse to bow to the commercialization of software exemplified by Microsoft and Apple. It was a subtle dig at the privileging of private profits over the larger needs of the community.

Clearly, the meanings associated with “Ubuntu” were all positive. Therefore, to argue against Ubuntu philosophy would be like arguing against the primacy of community or humanity, or God Himself. Coming from a school that prides itself in the formation of “men for others,” the Ateneo debaters could not have picked a side more opposed to the core Christian values in which they were bred.

But like the eloquent debaters they obviously are, Africa and Leung took up the challenge, and prevailed, by highlighting the dark and dangerous side of Ubuntu. This dark side is seen in the widespread tendency to justify tyranny in the name of some abstract community good.

Here is the news report of how the Ateneo team argued its position: “‘These obligations manifest badly … They always will,’ Africa said in his argument. He cited the difficulty of speaking up against the status quo, of people having less time to explore their own identity, and possible escalation of conflict.”

Leung chimed in with a more emphatic depiction of Ubuntu’s dark twin: “Community is a shackle that alienates you from your very sense of self, discourages you from discovering your own preference, and emboldens the worst forms of tyranny.” He was named the second-best speaker in the tournament.

Ubuntu is not exclusively an African value; it is also at the heart of the communitarian ideology behind the so-called “Asian values.” It is what Singapore’s leaders, for example, assert when, in the name of strategic national goals, they must counter their citizens’ growing clamor for greater individual liberties, for individualism can be equally pernicious.

Indeed, in the modern world, it has often become a warrant to allow the untrammeled rapaciousness of the market. Perhaps, the French philosopher Michel Foucault said it best. In his preface to the anti-fascist manifesto “Anti-Oedipus,” he wrote: “Do not demand of politics that it restore the ‘rights’ of the individual, as philosophy has defined them. The individual is the product of power. What is needed is to ‘de-individualize’ by means of multiplication and displacement, diverse combinations.”

Instead of the sheer quest for individual liberties, what is most needed in today’s world is the kind of freedom that encourages openness to the diverse affiliations that our common humanity offers.

 

Curb your nuclear enthusiasm some more

By BEN KRITZ

SINCE the recent “breakthrough” in nuclear fusion technology on closer examination turns out to be one small step on a path that will still take decades to travel, it is natural to wonder if there are perhaps other forms of nuclear energy that offer the prospect of being useful within the next couple of years. Energy policymakers and industry players here and elsewhere throughout the region are certainly hoping so. The Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia and Myanmar have all recently announced ambitions to pursue nuclear energy, and Japan has just lately reversed its nuclear decommissioning policy adopted in the aftermath of the 2011 earthquake and tsunami disaster.

Of those countries, Japan has the best chance of making practical use of nuclear energy before the end of the decade, because it already has an extensive conventional nuclear infrastructure and the knowhow to operate it. The downside of that is that the Japanese public may not be particularly supportive — experiencing the worst nuclear disaster since Chernobyl tends to temper people’s excitement — and even before the tsunami-induced Fukushima catastrophe, Japan for all its talent had a rather spotty record when it comes to nuclear safety. Japan’s nuclear plants (excluding Fukushima) are not really the problem, but the rest of the infrastructure — fuel processing and waste disposal — has experienced a number of serious, and in several cases fatal accidents.

It is that “rest of the infrastructure,” the extensive systems and processes necessary for the construction and operation of any kind of nuclear plant, that nuclear energy advocates here in the Philippines, even the fools still holding out hope for the operation of the Bronze Age-vintage Bataan Nuclear Power Plant, stubbornly ignore. In every country with legitimate experience in nuclear energy, whether it’s Japan, or the US, or France, or Korea, it is in those parts of the bigger system where things go wrong, often and with significant cost.

Since 1952, when the partial meltdown of Canada’s experimental NRX reactor became what is considered the first civilian nuclear accident, there have been 122 known accidents rated 1 or higher on the International Nuclear Event Scale (INES), an average of about one every seven weeks; 38 of those have been rated 4 or higher, which is considered “serious” or worse. These are just the accidents related to nuclear power; radiation accidents involving medical or other industrial systems are not included, but number in the hundreds.

The broad safety risks are something the Philippines is going to have to come to terms with, sooner or later; if the government and energy sector doesn’t do it sooner, which would obviously be preferable, some mistake will inevitably compel them to do so later. Fortunately, it seems the country will have the time to do things right — that is, develop an actual regulatory structure and enforceable safety standards before deploying nuclear power — simply because that other magical MacGuffin of nuclear technology everyone believes they will just be able to buy and plug in, the so-called small modular reactor (SMR) systems, has hit a number of development obstacles that will delay its practical application for years.

Another dud?

Recent agreements that the Philippines has sought have all been based on the assumption that SMRs are the most sensible direction for the country’s hoped-for foray into nuclear energy. Last month, the US announced it would begin discussions with the Philippines on a “123 agreement,” a prerequisite (from Section 123 of the US Atomic Energy Act) for the transfer of civilian nuclear technology. In addition, the US also announced that it would supply both the Philippines and Thailand with SMR technology, although no additional details were disclosed. It was also reported earlier this month that Meralco, the nation’s largest distribution utility, has announced it is applying for a grant from the US government to conduct a feasibility study for the use of SMRs.

SMRs, which are derived from small power plants used in ships and submarines, are touted as being more versatile, cheaper, more reliable, and producing less dangerous waste than conventional plants. On paper, they make some sense for the Philippines; their typical design size of around 100 megawatts (MW) capacity make them a good alternative to truly stupid generation sources such as oil or diesel for small islands and other isolated areas.

The problem is, all those benefits proven in naval applications — at least in the US; other countries, particular Russia, have had some issues — have not yet exactly translated well to the commercial concept everyone is so excited about.

The biggest hang-up, as is always the case with any version of nuclear power, is cost, and the issue is serious enough that it might completely kill development of SMRs in the US. On December 14, the trade journal Energy Wire reported that the most advanced (in terms of progress toward actual certification and deployment) project in the US, one being built by NuScale Power Corp. and Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems (UAMPS), is facing a vote by UAMPS members and utilities in six other Western states as early as next month as to whether the project should continue.

The project, which hopes to have the first of six 77-MW reactors operational by 2029, has seen its levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) soar to near $58 per megawatt-hour. The vote of the utility backers will be automatically triggered when $58 is reached, and if enough of them pull out — the effect of a “no” vote would be a utility’s opting out of purchasing electricity from the project when it is completed — its funding would effectively disappear.

The second big problem with SMRs, surprisingly, turns out to be waste management. As SMRs are, well, small, it has always been assumed that the amount of radioactive waste they would produce would be much smaller than a conventional nuclear plant, and therefore easier to safely store or dispose.

That, however, does not seem to be the case. Two fairly recent studies of unimpeachable credibility — one published this past May by Stanford University and another released last month by the US Department of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory — reached the similar conclusion that SMRs are not particularly “clean” with regard to waste generation, especially the type — the design used by the already cost-challenged NuScale project — that is considered the closest to being commercially viable.

“Our results show that most small modular reactor designs will actually increase the volume of nuclear waste in need of management and disposal, by factors of 2 to 30 for the reactors in our case study,” Stanford’s lead researcher said. In its press release, Argonne’s senior lead nuclear engineer said, “All told, when it comes to nuclear waste, SMRs are roughly comparable with conventional pressurized water reactors.”

The difference between the two studies’ conclusions is the point of view their respective authors take toward the findings, which can probably be overlooked since the results are what they are. Stanford’s opinion is that “overall, small modular designs are inferior to conventional reactors with respect to radioactive waste generation, management requirements, and disposal options.” Argonne’s lead expert, on the other hand, suggested that “there appear to be no additional major challenges to the management of SMR nuclear wastes compared to the commercial-scale large LWR (light water reactor) wastes.”

ben.kritz@manilatimes.net

JOSE MARIA SISON (1939-2022)

By MARLEN RONQUILLO  

… For journalism that still cherishes the critical role that obituaries play in informing the broader world about those who recently passed away and what their deaths mean, the recent passing of Jose Maria Sison at 83 in the Netherlands would have produced journalism at its best and most exploratory form. The reason is whether you have the political persuasion of retired General Parlade/Lorraine Badoy or that of Luis Jalandoni, it is undeniable that Mr. Sison is one of the most consequential Filipinos of the 20th century. There is no Right-Left debate on this because it is a settled issue.

Jose Maria Sison or Joma presumably must have been inspired by Jose Marti and Fidel Castro. The struggle he led, though, did not have the success of the Cuban version and is currently swimming against the current in a broader world that has lost its appetite for armed revolution as a means of seizing state power.

In some corners, Joma is demonized and cursed, blamed for a long-running communist insurgency that has caused many deaths, much anguish and the nation’s seeming economic paralysis. We still remember the names Mr. Duterte called him, with the accompanying expletives. A national villain like no other Mr. Sison was to the former president.

In some quarters, Joma is hailed as the founding father of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wing, the New People’s Army (NPA), which has bannered the fight for national liberation since the 1960s.

Even the so-called rejectionists, who left the CPP after a fallout with Mr. Sison over his supposedly ideological rigidity, have ambivalent sentiments about him. They vilify and deify him at the same time, but they in no way have diminished the outsized role that he played in influencing the life of our nation. Note that he was the intellectual father of the longest-running communist insurgency in the world. The old Partido Komunista ng Pilipinas was a moribund organization still tied to the apron strings of the dour Soviet Politburo when Joma cut ties, then repudiated the old guards called the Lavaites in 1969 and aligned the new party’s fight with a fresher formulation called MLMTT (Marx-Lenin-Mao Tse Tung) thought. In that year, Mao’s China was still a communist experiment 20 years after its triumphal march to Beijing by a coalition led by peasants who “encircled the city from the countryside.”

The 21st century has been tragic to Mr. Sison. Leftists who rejected his call for ideological purity asked him, some in disrespectful tones, to “read Gramsci instead of Lenin.” From a peak of 25,000 in the 1980s, the NPA supposedly is down to just about 2,000 fighters today. Marxists guerrillas elsewhere have either made peace with their governments or been rendered irrelevant. Former role models, Russia and China, are now dismissed as part of an “arc of authoritarianism,” not true Marxist nations.

But even those negativities cannot downplay the consequential life of Mr. Sison. A man with a sense of history would have merited obituaries that trace his roots as part of a landowning clan in Ilocos Sur, his university days, his poetry, and his decision to turn his back on his class origin to lead a Marxist, Leninist and Maoist revolution.

The obits should critique his two books on Philippine society with the thesis that it was decadent, bankrupt and beyond reform whose salvation lies in armed struggle. With “US imperialism” now more of a shibboleth than the scourge of former colonies like the Philippines, they should ask if the two books still serve their purpose amid new revolutionary conditions.

A second look at the doctrine encircling the city from the countryside deserves to be part of the obituaries.

Meanwhile, the country’s literary figures should appraise Mr. Sison’s poetry in their obits for him

Of course, expansive coverage of his demise will not come. TikTok seems to have canceled what is left of the country’s sense of history. When that dries up, a nation loses interest in the death of a man who mattered, hate him or love him.

I never wanted to write about obituaries this holiday season, but this piece about Jose Maria Sison has to be written. Merry Chtristmas, Pilipinas.